Ask HN: How has Hacker News changed over the years?
What changes do you like/hate?
What changes do you like/hate?
Some times I come across old threads in Google searches and I’m shocked by the quality of the older discourse. It’s much harder to find threads with deep, nuanced conversations today than it was even a few years ago.
The sharpest change happened around the start of the pandemic when everyone started working from home. I think HN became a social outlet for more people all at once. Combine that with pandemic-related frustrations and the vibe here became sharply angrier. Even dang has mentioned the pandemic-related influx of angry users in a few comments.
Lately I’m also surprised at how anti-tech and pro-regulation the comment sections have become. Recent Facebook threads are the best example of a lot of angry, low-effort comments (do we really need 100 comments from different people bragging about quitting Facebook every time the topic comes up?).
Quite a lot of good stuff gets lost in the "new" page.
For the anti-tech and pro-regulation sentiment, I admit I've been a part of that. I cannot disagree that hundreds of posts saying the same thing are monotonous, but I cannot bring myself to criticise it because then I'd be silencing a PoV that is mine.
Given the viputerative nature of discussions here, that's probably better for the health of the community (and your own mental and emotional health) than posting a comment most of the time..
The only discorse censored are one way. Against concensus. Up until early 2020, being agains concensus was perfectly fine on HN granted you provided a quality source. And usually made for fun though provoking reads.
HN has not sunken so low on opinion sharing that it had become the absolute disaster that reddit has. Sadly its getting close though.
My impression has been similar. The original discourse, logical reasoning and critical thinking is seriously lacking now in discussions.
I see higher frequency of "citation needed" type of low effort comments that assume no one posting can have original thinking without it being thought by someone else and published already somewhere else online. In similar vain, responses seems to be very severe and personal when someone finds something online contrary to what someone posted. More and more HN participants seem to assume if it is published and available online, specially in research paper format or discoursed by a "popular" personality, it has more credibility irrespective of quality.
On the positive side, I see lot more variety of topics discussed on HN, previously topics used to be mostly tech and startup related and very infrequently finance related. Now, I can find discussions even related to energy, material science, medical sciences etc though lacking in depth.
IMO, overall HN reflects rest of the internet, availability of more and more information easily accessible has reduced the ability to critically analyze and logically reason through problems and present arguments.
Of course, there were far, far fewer users. They had much less forgettable names. There wasn’t the preponderance of throwaways that you see now. My impression was that a large portion of the users were actually affiliated with YC companies, and a lot of the discussion was about YC business and tech. Paul Graham was an active commenter. You got to know who the regulars were, and recognize them by name. I find that much harder to do now.
As far as content, I honestly can’t remember whether there was really more tech, or more business, or less politics. What I do is that the issues, and the way people frame and debate them, has changed a lot in 12 years. But that’s not specific to HN. HN seems to lag behind “the discourse” on more mainstream social media sites, and I think that’s good.
Sometime around 2011 (?) there was a crisis in which there was a great deal of debate over a period of months, about whether the quality of comments and discussion was declining. I was of the opinion that comment quality had been extremely high at first, and was in fact slipping. The other side said we were imagining things, and Eternal Septembering or whatever. pg eventually sort of agreed there was a problem, and asked for solutions. There was much debate. He made some tweaks to the site.
But the perception of decline remained. pg seemed to gradually back away from what he had created. At some point we got the high-profile active moderation you see today. pg has been almost entirely absent for years now.
It’s totally useless and they don’t contribute to discussion at all.
* There were more stories about the technical platforms of startups. Most of the time, the technical founders joined us here for those discussions. We had heated discussions on the philosophies of DHH vs PG. Now we don't hear about those bootstrapping stories or seed investments anymore.
* The quality was greater, in my subjective opinion. I lost count of the number of useful or interesting experimental thoughts or ideas I read only here. On no other social platform could I find such diverse and thought-provoking thoughts and ideas. On more than one occasion, when I asked a question about a company or a framework, the founder or creator replied. They all seemed to converge here. It was amazing.
* This place had a lot of active Googlers of every age range. Now, people identify themselves as FAANG employees more often than not.
* Show HN (or its equivalent) used to be very active. Now, when I go there, the page looks like a ghost town.